Robers v. United States

Holding: A provision of the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 requires property crime offenders to pay “an amount equal to . . . the value of the property” minus “the value (as of the date the property is returned) of any part of the property that is returned.” In that provision, the phrase “any part of the property” refers to the property that was lost as a result of the crime – in this case, involving a fraudulent loan application, the money lent by the bank. The property is not “returned” until it is sold and the victim receives money from the sale. Here, that means that a sentencing court should reduce the amount of restitution by the amount of money the bank received when it sold the houses that were collateral for the fraudulent loans, rather than by the (greater) value of the houses when the bank foreclosed on them.

Judgment: Affirmed, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on May 5, 2014.

Aug. 2015

In a conversation with Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard, Justice Samuel Alito reflects upon (among other things) his arrival on the Court, recent First Amendment cases, the themes in his dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges, and his love for baseball.